Sunday, April 1, 2012

The case has been settled under confidential terms. Here is Reverend Mac Brunson's statement:

"In April of 2009, I was quoted in a Times Union article regarding an Internet blog which concerned this Church.

The article stated that I had labeled the author of the blog "obsessive compulsive" and a "sociopath". I did use those words and those conditions to describe Mr. Tom Rich, the author of the blog. These are serious and debilitating conditions.

These statements have resulted in protracted litigation for myself and this Church.

Mr. Rich and his family were longtime members of this Church. Mr. Rich is not obsessive compulsive and is not a sociopath. I regret making those statements. I want to apologize to Mr. Rich and his family. I also want to apologize to you and the Church." Mac Brunson

People, the only light Mac Brunson saw was the legal light. Mac Brunson is always preaching about how we are to treat people but it took the legal system, not God convicting him to issue an apology to Tom. I bet Mrs. Mac was squirming in her seat during the "apology".

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free .

Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th century German philosopher, was quoted as saying: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Dawg congratulations, continue to speak the truth with, and in the love of Christ.Grace & Peace - Elder gab

WOW. And I was already about to purchase you free therapy for your DSM-IV diagnoses, one being an Axis I and the other being an Axis II diagnosis.

WD, I am saddened that all this has taken place. And yes we all know that the apology comes under legal pressure. However, He could have stood his ground and NOT followed through with the apology. He chose to do so and that takes humility to do. I am proud of him for not allowing this to move further in court. I am also glad that this statement puts to rest the issue of you and your character.

As we close the FBCJ chapter, I do look forward to you further standing watch for the rest of us on the abuses and misuses of the clergy on their sheep.

I just read it in the Jacksonville Times union this morning(Jax.com) It was a win for the blogger and his family. I am sure the trespass warnings were lifted, but doubt very much that this family would want to step foot again at FBC. Blogger said that they all reached "an amicable" solution.Your perseverance is admired! God bless your family !

Mr. Rich, my husband and I became aware of your blog approximately a year and a half ago. We were searching online for the proper way of alerting those in church authority to a deceptive preacher. Let's just say it went badly for us and ultimately the congregation that we left. We were not believed even though we had facts and evidence. The deacons refused to listen to us and investigate our claims. We left as we were advised by a former pastor to shake the dust off our feet and move on. Since then, the church has split, the church is financially drained, and the deacons finally asked the preacher to leave. Sadly, the seeds of deception that he planted have germinated and grown like a weed. The deacons are still arrogant and refuse to believe they were manipulated by this man and refuse to be transparent with the congregation that is left. It's become a pathetic mockery of what happens when man tries to play God. Wonderfully God directed us to a new church home where we are serving, blessing others, and being blessed. There is truth in the pulpit, transparency in leadership, and humility. And most of all there is love. Of course, it's not perfect, but the church won't be until we're called home!I pray the Lord heals the spiritual wounds that were inflicted upon you and your family.Onward & Upward!Julie

You members of First Baptist should think about this case every time the offering plate is passed because it's likely the terms of the agreement included a sizable monetary settlement which I can assure you did not come out of Mac's pocket but yours.

"You members of First Baptist should think about this case every time the offering plate is passed because it's likely the terms of the agreement included a sizable monetary settlement which I can assure you did not come out of Mac's pocket but yours."

You obviously do not know how these things work. All large churches carry plenty of insurance for lawsuits that happen each year for many reasons. Settlement funds come from this source which is why prudent folks carry such insurance.

Congratulations to you and your family, WD! God was on your side, not the church's, in this ordeal. For the skeptics out there, you can bet no apology would have been rendered if there wasn't enough credible evidence to force it. Truth won!!!

Congratulations, Tom. I was informed of your case not too long ago as I am currently going through a lawsuit by my former pastor because of things I posted in Google reviews about spiritual abuse in the church I attended. Thank you for fighting this cause not only for you, but for others like me. It gives me hope.

"It's called defamation and slander and they are punishable by our government which is backed by scripture."

Not everything the law allows needs to be followed. The law allows many things that are sinful. This does not mean we have to partake.

"Some people have to learn their lessons the hard way."

There was no lesson learned in any of this that honors God. None.

"Don't be bitter TROLL just because you lost."

Not a troll, not a defender of Mac or Tom, and as stated earlier, the only won who lost here was Jesus and the testimony of His church (individual or corporate). That you do not see that is extremely dark.

Sure there is. Mac learned that if he uses the police inappropriately to get the name of a critic from an internet provider and then sends that critic and his family trespass papers and then calls him a sociopath to the newspaper that he will be sued, lose the case and have to pay that critic cash and then have to make an embarrassing apology in front of the entire church.

That is the lesson Mac learned.

It honors God when the pastor admits that he did wrong when he did do something wrong.

A settlement is compensation for harm done, not an unearned gift. The purpose is to make the victim "whole" or at least mitigate the pain and expense. The settlement reflects that Tom and family were harmed by the statements made.

Congratulations Tom and your attorney for a battle well fought. As an attorney and mediator, I can appreciate the difficulty in taking on the power that accrues to a pastor in a mega downtown church in the South.

This should be a lesson to the narcissists in the pulpit as well as their deacon boards and congregations. Supervise your pastor!!!! He works for you, not vice versa.

Why is it Christians do not know how to apologize and ask for forgiveness? All it takes is "I am sorry for ______ will you please forgive me?" Also if restitution is required you offer it. By the way Tom where is you apology for all the insults to Dr. Brunson and other church members? You can't deny the history of your blog.

Rev. Brunson said:"Mr. Rich and his family were longtime members of this Church. Mr. Rich is not obsessive compulsive and is not a sociopath. I regret making those statements. I want to apologize to Mr. Rich and his family. I also want to apologize to you and the Church." Mac Brunson"

I have reviewed the WD blog from the beginning, focusing on the question of any tort or crime committed by the WD himself (and not by commenters -- those fall on the heads of the commenters, and not WD; there were some comments that were clearly over one or the other line!).

But as to the remarks of the WD, I have found nothing that was slanderous, false, criminal, etc. in the things he has written, whether in the post or in his responses to comments. As an attorney, I believe that he is one or more of: very careful, well advised by an attorney or the like, or just very smart.

Tom owes no one an apology, for he has done no moral, ethical, or legal harm by telling anything that was untrue or not carefully caveated. His actions were limited to writing opinion and facts. That he pointed out inconsistencies by the pastor at FBC Jax, over the top self-aggrandizement by the same pastor, etc., is nothing to be sorry for, unless you are that same pastor or his minions.

No sincerity? That's because he (Brunson) didn't do ANYTHING wrong. Tom Rich is an absolute jerk but the Lord will deal with him in his own time. The the pastor's family and the enitre congregation were completely embarrassed to death that he had to read that statement Sunday.

i have to say congrats on this and just wanted to let you know my grandfather worked at the church for 20 years the church offers life in on there workers and when my grandfather passed away we his family did not get the money we were told because he was not on full time he went to part time going to work sick but another man that worked there passed away before my grandfather and his family got the money and he had not been working there for awhile well something just does not add up

How did the court determine that you were not "obsessive compulsive" and a "sociopath"? Did that matter anyway?

The error was Mac was unqualified to say that from the FBC Jax's pulpit. Mac got off easy, he is the winner here! He got a slap on the wrist, a little embarrassed for pretending to be a psychiatrist. This embarrassment will be short lived and everything is back to normal. Mac won!

"Is there a legal difference between defamation and name-calling, or mudslinging? It appears that if Mac is guilty for defaming Tom, then what is the difference in Tom's actions toward Mac?"

As far as I can tell nothing Tom wrote was a lie. Some of the comments left by others don't count as they are responsible for what they wrote. Just because Mac doesn't like to hear the truth or want others to hear it doesn't make it defamation, name-calling, or mud-slinging.

Just curious... absolutely, I feel Brunson's comments were a bit loud (while they were true) but God is going to hve the last say in this and the man of God and his family will not suffer anymore than they have because of this. I look at WD not as a Luther but as a Sanhedrin. While there may be corruption in the SBC in some places, it is not his place to talk about it. It will be bad enough being me on judgement day.

While there may be corruption in the SBC in some places, it is not his place to talk about it. It will be bad enough being me on judgement day.

I disagree strongly. As Christians we should want justice and churches held to a high standard. Christians should be held to a high standard, especially our leaders. I am sick and tired of ram rodding of authority, I am sick and tired of greed in leadership, and I am sick and tired of spiritual abuse in our churches. We should say something. Tom did. I am glad he did.

"Why is it okay for Tom to say whatever he wants to about Mac, but it is wrong for Mac to say what he wants to about Tom?"

Initially, Tom was not a public figure and Brunson was thus making Brunson comments having the potential for litigation.

Now after all of the hubbub Tom too is now a public figure and more than just a mere anonymous blogger and like Brunson will have to be careful to avoid slandering or liabling someone to avoid the potential of litigation.

"No sincerity? That's because he (Brunson) didn't do ANYTHING wrong. Tom Rich is an absolute jerk but the Lord will deal with him in his own time. The the pastor's family and the enitre congregation were completely embarrassed to death that he had to read that statement Sunday."

Sorry anon. You are wrong! As a long time member, over 3o years, and FBCJ insider Brunson was totally out of line and so was Soud not only in their comments but their actions. This was a long time coming and should have been dealt with in a much different manner.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Tom and his comments and him being bitter water and not sweet water, but in America that is his first amendment right and I will vigorously support him in that regard.

If his family was embarrassed, frankly that is his business and not yours.

As a one in the congregation his statement did not embarrass me or anyone else for that matter as much as we were glad that he apologized for his actions.

In this new age we are living, social media does a lot of harm but it also does a lot of good. To some degree it does a better job than the so called unbiased media. The examples are too numerous to list but social media has done a lot to protect children from abuse and prosecute the abusers and many other serious crimes against innocents.

Congratulations Mr. Rich on a battle well fought and a battle worth the fight. You stood against the arrogance and the egoism of a false prophet who seemed to think that his position as pastor of a mega church gave him the right to abuse you and your family. Please, do not stop exposing the audacities and insolences of men who, like Mac Brunson, bring shame to God’s name by their actions and attitudes.

"This could actually be a very good thing for Mac. Hopefully he's much humbled by God's exposure of his tongue issue."

What did his tongue have to do with using the police improperly and issuing trespass warnings. Sounds like he has many issues to deal with.

"It's never fun to be humbled by the Lord; it is, however, always in our best interest."

So, what WD did was the Lord's work?

"As for the "cash," it's quite instructive to read about the lives of the lottery winners. It's not good."

Bad analogy. You have no idea how much if any money that WD received. You have no idea what he plans to do with it. And he was awarded something from the courts for damage done to him by your pastor. It didn't come from gambling.

To whoever answered my question,"Why is it okay for Tom to say whatever he wants to about Mac, but it is wrong for Mac to say what he wants to about Tom?"

You said, "Initially, Tom was not a public figure and Brunson was thus making Brunson comments having the potential for litigation.

Now after all of the hubbub Tom too is now a public figure and more than just a mere anonymous blogger and like Brunson will have to be careful to avoid slandering or liabling someone to avoid the potential of litigation."

Does that mean that Brunson has grounds to sue Tom for defamation, libel, and slander? Can Mac now turn around and demand an apology from Tom?

Just Curious: Look up defamation, slander, and libel. If someone is speaking the truth, it is not considered defamatory, slanderous or libelous in a court of law.

Dee: I posted about Tom's victory on Sunday and also informed my attorney of the case.

Tom: I see that you have been given a lot of negative comments - most likely from those who don't want to investigate themselves if what you say is true. I want to reiterate how thankful I am that you have fought this case in court. You have made a powerful statement for those like me who are fighting for the right to tell the truth and do not want to be bullied by those in church leadership. I'm so thrilled for you. Don't let the turkeys get you down.

Jesus was not an adversary of the legal court system of his day. He spoke of it on more than one occasion. WD properly used the legal system available in our day, and more righteously than those in greater authority, who attempted to circumvent the system.Grace & Peace - Elder gab

(KJV) Matthew 5:25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

(KJV) Luke 12:14And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

(This implies there was a legal system in place to address this case).

It seems to me that Tom got his apology on the issue of the public outburst. Mac should never have said those things and I am sure that he genuinely regrets those words. Who hasn't said things that they regret?

I think that Soud was correct in his assessment of Tom's cowardice. In the least he and your lawyer were too chicken to pick on someone a little more formidable.

There are other issues though.

There was no apology for kicking Tom out of our fellowship and banning him from the church property.

Tom's behavior and comments were unbecoming a church member. Tom failed to bring his grievances forth in a constructive manner. Instead, he chose to air things anonymously in a cowardly manner. What Tom did was the equivalent of someone saying things that harms their spouse. If you engage in that type of activity, you are begging for a divorce.

Most of what Tom wrote about was none of Tom's business. For example, Collins has the right to give away or sell his land to whomever and for whatever price he wants to. Mac is perfectly within his rights to accept any gift or pay any price he wants for land. There is no issue whatsoever.

As a long time member of FBC, I am proud that Tom is banned from our church. He is a trouble maker of the most grotesque kind.

anon 2:16 Would you please post some of the lies you claim Tom has posted so we can verify. You paint with an empty brush if you fail to disclose any facts. You appear to worship rather than provide details. Most of us believe in facts rather than fiction.

All this talk about who won and who lost. The bottom line is God lost and Satan won. If Mac is who most of you people say he is, then the pulpit committee and the congregation are at fault for voting to bring Mac to FBC. I was at the service when the vote was taken, and I don not remember anyone voting Nay or standing up to voice their opinion. There are a lot of good God fearing people at FBC, and they are the real losers in all of this, but no one seems to care about them. God help us all.

Tom and Yvette,This is an amazing story. Glad to hear that you have been vindicated!

As I shared with a few colleagues: This is a distressing look at the lengths that spiritual abuse can go in the life of long term church members and a ‘fussy’ church leader.

It is obvious that some people still don't get it. That is to be expected.I agree with Provender. A true pioneer in exposing spiritual abuse through blogging!I agree with Free. Look past the circus in the comments section.

It is a time now for you to reflect on all that has happened. It is an encouragement for others who face similar 'trials'.

You and others might be interested in my book: Spiritual Abuse Recovery.

Information about my book, spiritual abuse, and related topics can be found on my website: www.ChurchExiters.com.

You might be interested in the launch of a new website: Abuse Resource Network .com.

All the best as you continue to take a stand for things that are not right.

This settlement reminds all that even the Church is not above the "Law" or normal standards of decency and morality simply because they think they are doing "God's Work". The logic conclusion of that kind of thinking is planes flying into buildings!

"A few hundred people who happened to stay after the invitation,saw it?, maybe?"

ANON that is the problem with folks like you who do not attend a local fellowship as FBCJAX. You were not there. I WAS and there were well over 6400 people. SO GET OVER IT! GROW UP!! AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

Good times for all. You got your 50k and Brunson can finally move on. Who's next on your list for another payoff?Of course you won't publish this one will you. I don't go to FBC so I'm not a Baptist and glad I'm not as you seem to kill your own....you will have to answer for all those you turned against the church....I'll pray for you cause you will need it!

Anonymous said... Good times for all. You got your 50k and Brunson can finally move on. Who's next on your list for another payoff?Of course you won't publish this one will you. I don't go to FBC so I'm not a Baptist and glad I'm not as you seem to kill your own....you will have to answer for all those you turned against the church....I'll pray for you cause you will need it!

April 7, 2012 8:28 PM

Wait, you sayin' WD has ill-gotten gains out of this? YOu don't know the specifics of this case or you wouldn't say this.

Wait, you might know the specifics after all, but you are a man worhipping pew sitter. Which is it?

Mac overstepped his bounds as a pastor and leader, why is it wrong to call him out on it.

Why didn't the leader of a big church step and show some grace and compassion. Nope he didn't and won't, except that the lawyers said to.

He takes his cues from Lawyers. He ignored the ones calls from scripture.

I haven't seen the blog in quite some time, WD. I'm glad you got a settlement but I surely wouldn't call what Mac read to the congregation an apology to you. Several of you who have said that he apologized only because of what the lawyers told him he had to say are no doubt correct!

What Mac Brunson said publicly about Tom Rich was the straw that broke the camel's back and resulted in our decision to leave FBC.

Mac Brunson was and is the reason for the problems in the church since he arrived. He simply could not swallow his pride and admit that anyone has an opinion worth hearing.

Mac Brunson got really bad training/advice in how to react when he's criticized. If Mac would have set aside his pride right at the start he could have prevented any/all of the problems which occurred at FBC since his coronation.

What's really sad is that Mac Brunson hasn't changed at all and will continue to believe that he is the only man who can possibly know how to pastor FBC.

If it wasn't for the fact that our POTUS has this country in such a stranglehold and property values were better I believe Mac would have sold his house and left because doggone it, he got his feelings hurt by having to apologize to WD! I'm thinking he maybe had to go the dentist after reading his "apology" because he gritted his teeth so hard they had to be repaired! :-)

Why are Christians surprised at wickedness in the church when you have a church with this type of power, money and influence? Mr. Brunson should have been asked to leave as soon as he sought to use authorities to hound someone being critical of him. This shows a petty and mean spirited heart.

He should be ashamed of himself and his congregation should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a pastor to take that sort of wealth for himself and his family and use such power and influence for personal vendetta.

Also...his attempt at an apology appeared like more grandstanding to me.

If this Tom Rich guy is the FBC watchdog, get a therapist. Orca life. Or move on and get over hounding FBC. You're obsessed. All this endless attack on FBC, Brunson and the leadership is unhealthy and unChristian.

I seems like most of the posts are happy for YOUR victory. I am glad i am not you when you stand before GOD. I live in Georgia and not a member of this church, but any attack on the Church is mean spirited. You need help and prayers. I think something is wrong with you. Mmmm lost.

I seems like most of the posts are happy for YOUR victory. I am glad i am not you when you stand before GOD. I live in Georgia and not a member of this church, but any attack on the Church is mean spirited. You need help and prayers. I think something is wrong with you. Mmmm lost.

I am confused. Mac stated at the beginning of his quoted apology he 'did not use those words (obsessive compulsive, sociopath)'. Yet at the close of his posted apology, he stated 'I regret making those statements'. So is he saying he did call the blogger an obsessive compulsive sociopath, or he did not. If he didn't make those comments, then he should be apologizing for his behavior, not his statements. apology is nil and void in my opinion.

Keep blogging! The insidious nature of spiritual abuse must be exposed.

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"